The Bellingham Herald sent questionnaires to candidates for major offices in the November 2011 general election. Candidates answered the following questions in their own words.
These are unedited; candidates were limited to 300 words per question.
For quick links to each candidate's responses, click on their names below:
Ward 3
At-Large
The election is Nov. 8. If you are not registered to vote in Washington, you can register in person at the Whatcom County Auditor's Office until Monday, Oct. 31.
If you are registered to vote but miss the deadline to update your address, you can still vote. Contact the county elections office where you are currently registered in order to obtain a ballot.
Elected office you seek: Bellingham City Council, Ward 3
Age: 56
Family: wife Judy Buchanan; sons Jesse, 36, and Randy, 28; daughter Jennifer, 32.
Education: Bellingham High School, United States naval advanced electronics; San Jose City College computer science, Ohlone College computer science.
Work experience: United States Navy; Lockheed Missiles and Space Company; Heath Tecna Aerospace; Doyle Training Company; Bianchi-Group Industrial Training Inc.
Civic experience: incumbent Bellingham City Council member for Ward 3, president of Lettered Streets Neighborhood Association, member of Mayor's Neighborhood Advisory Commission, chairman Whatcom County Democratic Party, co-founder and head drum major Bellingham High School Alumni Band.
Major endorsements (limit 10): Bellingham City Employees Union AFSCME Local 114, Whatcom County/Bellingham Firefighters Local 106, Bellingham Police Guild, Bellingham City Employees Supervisors and Professional Union Teamsters Local 231, Northwest Washington Central Labor Council, Whatcom County Democratic Women's Club, North Sound Democrats, Whatcom County Association of Realtors, Congressman Rick Larsen, former City Council member Louise Bjornson.
Campaign website: BarryForBellingham.com
Email: barrybuchanan46@aol.com
Twitter handle: @BarryBuchanan
Facebook page: www.facebook.com/people/Barry-Buchanan/100001178704342
Q and A
Candidates answered the following questions in their own words. These are unedited; candidates were limited to 300 words per questions.
Please share your thinking on the Gateway Pacific Terminal project. If you favor it, how can Bellingham be protected from potential negative impacts? If you oppose it, is there any level of mitigation or compensation that would change your thinking?
I am not in favor of the burning of coal anywhere in the world because of greenhouse gas and climate change issues.
There are numerous things to consider such as : 1. A number of medical professionals have formally expressed their collective opinion on the potential health hazards Bellingham could face if this project is built. 2. Transportation impacts due to increase rail traffic through Bellingham 3. Potential economic impacts to Bellingham.
Bellingham does not have direct jurisdiction for permitting in this project.We do have some degree of influence.The Council sent a letter asking for the scoping of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to include impacts on Bellingham. That was the correct first approach for the city to take. The next steps are to address those impacts identified in the EIS and work hard towards having mitigation steps put into place that eliminate those impacts. The EIS process does not yield a detailed analysis on health impacts therefore another measure we should take now as a council is to send a request to the Washington State Department of Health to have them fully evaluate the health impacts and provide an agency report detailing those impacts.
Should city water bills be raised to provide more money for Lake Whatcom storm water control and watershed land acquisition? Why or why not?
I serve on the Council's Lake Whatcom Reservoir and Natural Resources Committee. We have reviewed the proposed 5-year work plan submitted by the staff. Our committee has demanded a restoration plan that goes beyond the work plan. In response, a cost benefit analysis study is being done to identify measures and priorities for restoration. I want to implement projects identified as the most effective.
I support increasing Acquisition Surcharge on the water bill to fund our property acquisition and redefining the use of those funds to include a proportional amount to fund programs identified in the cost benefit analysis.
If city revenues continue to lag behind spending, should the city look for ways to increase tax revenues to maintain city services? If so, how?
Right now it looks like our revenues are beginning to stabilize and show signs of a soft recovery. We have to be very careful as we move forward and not over estimate this recovery. We must continue to prioritize our spending emphasizing our core services such as public health and safety, utilities and transportation. I am worried about our level of staffing at the police department. I served on the task force that looked at our police department and it was very clear we are below staffing levels (per capita) of other comparable Washington State cities. I will bring forward (this year) a proposal for using our banked capacity on property tax to add funding for law enforcement staffing. I would also support sending a ballot measure to the voters in the near future to increase tax revenues for law enforcment if we are not able to begin increasing staffing soon.
What are your views on the red-light cameras? If voters pass the nonbinding measure in November against the cameras, would you vote to end the program after the one-year pilot, even if it raised a large amount of money for the city?
I think it is important that the public voice be heard and I am glad we will get to hear that voice in the result of this advisory vote. Personally, I would not have signed the contract prior to public input and all issues being resolved, and I would have focused more emphasis on school zone safety. I believe strongly in doing things for the good of public safety but want to strike a balance and I believe the voters need to be heard. I would strongly consider ending the program after the one-year pilot if the voters decide that is what they want. It is our job to also look at the safety data after the pilot program to see how much we have improved traffic safety at those locations. We must thoroughly evaluate both the elections results and the safety results to make the best, informed decision. The revenue component of the program will NOT be a consideration for me.
What are your views on the recently passed shopping bag ordinance? Would you like to revisit the issue? If so, what changes would you support?
I supported the single use plastic bag ban in Bellingham because the proposal was vetted by a host of stakeholders. The business community had a chance to express themselves on the issue and weighed in favor citing reasons that were important to them from a business perspective. I expressed a concern that the Bellingham Food Bank will not be impacted by a shortage of bags they need for distribution of food. I have heard that some grocery stores have pledged to donate their remaining supply of bags to the Food Bank when this ordinance goes into effect next year.
What can the city do to speed up waterfront redevelopment?
The Port and the City Administrations have not worked cooperatively in the past 3 years and as a result plans have stalled. I think the new Port Director will be a huge asset in helping to get things off the ground. It is up to the city to get this plan officially into the public process and get the legislative review underway. Let's get this to the Planning Commission and then on to the Council. The public is frustrated and eager to get this moving.
How should the city cover the $3.4 million gap in the Chuckanut Ridge purchase? With this large purchase on the south side, what should the city do to provide a better parks balance on the north side?
The Chuckanut Ridge purchase was the right thing to do and the right time to preserve the special nature of our only remaining urban forest that many of us grew up with and want to pass down to our children and their children. Their interest won't be on the details how we accomplished it, but rather that we have preserved it. We all know that this issue, with us for many years, has had a myriad of components to address. The only remaining piece (albeit not small) is to find a solution to the last funding piece. I would rather have not been so rushed and had funding source(s) in place prior to acquisition, but have faith that between the stakeholders and city leaders we will find a solution. Through the efforts of some private fundraising and looking at tools like a Municipal Parks Improvement District and potential grants we can cover this gap in funding. We have made a lot of purchases on the north side of the city since I have been in office. We need to make sure we are agressive at finding opportunities in the north side and most importantly, develop those aquisitions into parks.
Elected office you seek: Bellingham City Council, Ward 3
Age: 34
Education: bachelor of arts in communications, Western Washington University, 2000; graduate certificate in sustainable business, Bainbridge Graduate Institute, 2008.
Work experience: Futurewise, Whatcom County Chapter director, 2008-present; Sustainable Connections, sustainable business development manager, 2004-2008; Whatcom Volunteer Center, Retired and Senior Volunteer Program director, 2002-2003; Future English School, English Teacher in Dalian, China, 2002; Opportunity Council, community voice mail coordinator: 2000-2001.
Civic experience: Whatcom Conservation Voters board of directors, three years; Downtown Bellingham Partnership board of directors (MNAC representative), three years; Wellspring Community School board of directors, one year; Girls on the Run of NW Washington board of directors, one year.
Major endorsements (limit 10): Whatcom Conservation Voters; Whatcom County Democrats; Whatcom Democratic Women's Club; Whatcom Young Democrats; Sierra Club, Mount Baker Group; National Women's Political Caucus of NW Washington; Progressive Majority; NARAL; Amalagamated Transity Union, Local 843.
Campaign website: votecathylehman.com
Email: cathy@votecathylehman.com
Twitter handle: @votecathylehman
Facebook page: facebook.com/votecathylehman
Q and A
Candidates answered the following questions in their own words. These are unedited; candidates were limited to 300 words per questions.
Please share your thinking on the Gateway Pacific Terminal project. If you favor it, how can Bellingham be protected from potential negative impacts? If you oppose it, is there any level of mitigation or compensation that would change your thinking?
I am officially neutral on the SSA Cherry Point project. Bellingham needs high wage jobs, and I consider any conversation about employment needs and possibilities an important conversation to have in our community. However, it's not lost on me that the project, as currently outlined, would likely compromise the health and well being of Bellingham residents, and that deeply concerns me.
Bellingham needs to have a seat at the table in determining what activities might occur, what mitigation could fully (and I mean fully!) offset those activities (if that's even possible), and what costs should be born by the developer to ensure our ability to meet local citizens' needs continues. Of course, this all hinges on the presupposition that GPT wouldn't be detrimental to the basic health and wellbeing of Bellingham residents, which is yet to be determined. Since that possibility exists, and is in fact highly likely, I believe the City should be involved in the process of scoping and conducting an Environmental Impact Statement for GPT to ensure all possible impacts to Bellingham can be measured and judged in advance of any actual decisions or development occurring.
In my experience with land use advocacy, I've learned that good advocacy is well timed, and helps me retain three invaluable resources: 1) certainty that my point is well researched, founded on facts and is indeed correct 2) credibility with my both supporters and naysayers that my position has been come to wisely 3) relationships with a spectrum of people from all positions, across the community This project is likely be litigated for a couple of years, during which time talks with continue. I want to ensure that all parties will continue communication with me as that process unfolds, because when communication stalls, possibilities for a win-win end.
Should city water bills be raised to provide more money for Lake Whatcom storm water control and watershed land acquisition? Why or why not?
Yes, 100%. Without a doubt. There is no more fundamental service government should provide than ensuring clean drinking water. We know that a few more bucks on everyone's water bill will help make a tremendous difference in cleaning up the lake. Bottom line? Lake Whatcom is dying. We have a clear choice in front of us: leave a legacy of clean drinking water for our children, or leave them an expensive, deteriorating mess. The choice is clear to me, and I think it is to the rest of Bellingham as well.
If city revenues continue to lag behind spending, should the city look for ways to increase tax revenues to maintain city services? If so, how?
The most basic rule of finance is to live within your means. When revenues are lagging, the first thing we need to do is reduce spending to keep expenditures under revenues. After that, it's time to start thinking as entrepreneurially as possible for new opportunities to meet needs and increase available resources. This is not so that we can keep previous programs and expenses at the same level they got to in flush years; some programs may have run their course. This is to regain our financial footing, carve out income in creative ways where possible, and build our rainy day fund. Two great things we can do for city coffers (and that we desperately need to improve on) are to actively recruit and retain high wage employers, and reduce barriers to development in the existing city limits.
What are your views on the red-light cameras? If voters pass the nonbinding measure in November against the cameras, would you vote to end the program after the one-year pilot, even if it raised a large amount of money for the city?
Red light cameras are fundamentally about safety. Revenue is only a pertinent part of this conversation as it could relate to increasing public safety, in addition to the safety increases provided by the cameras themselves.
Originally I found this concept simply uninspiring, and later considered it perhaps a necessary tool to achieve increased safety and revenues (for more public safety efforts) for citizens. Now it appears we've tied our hands on a contract that a significant portion of our citizens feel badly about, with a company that isn't a team player. We'll have a vote in November, and regardless of the outcome are stuck with these cameras for a year. However one benefit may be we'll get to test the project, and then have specific metrics in addition to the citizen vote, on which to base a future decision.
As it stands now, I do feel I'd likely vote against the cameras after the 1 year pilot.
What are your views on the recently passed shopping bag ordinance? Would you like to revisit the issue? If so, what changes would you support?
I'm always proud when Bellingham takes a leadership position on environmental issues, and the plastic bag ban is a great example of the ethic that makes our city an environmental leader. However, I'm concerned when we spend time and resources on actions that don't actively 1) recruit high wage jobs, 2) spur development downtown and at the waterfront, and 3) clean up Lake Whatcom. We have big fish to fry as a community. I certainly hope we don't revisit this issue.
What can the city do to speed up waterfront redevelopment?
First and foremost, we need some public access. We need to show a good-faith effort that cleanup and a planning process are moving forward, and that the city is ready to work with developers and the community and the Port to make it happen.
We also need to:
- revisit the interlocal agreement; currently it's a raw deal for Bellngham.
- start a public process with our planning commission and council, and start getting citizen feedback on basic ideas right away.
- implement better communication with the Port. This is critical, and the issues preventing good communication here need to be identified and stopped.
- get stakeholders onboard with a practical vision of what is possible for our redevelopment site, based on what's been done elsewhere and what experts in the field see we are primed for.
The waterfront is our crown jewel! And we all deserve the best to come of it. It's time for the City and the Port to get on Team Waterfront together and start cranking on some tangible access and deliverables for the community. Anything else is just unacceptable.
How should the city cover the $3.4 million gap in the Chuckanut Ridge purchase? With this large purchase on the south side, what should the city do to provide a better parks balance on the north side?
We need a number of mechanisms working together to help pay off this funding gap. One should be determining if a portion of the land could be sold for development without compromising the intact ecosystem of Chuckanut Ridge. Another should be a citizen effort to raise private funds. There are many other options in between these two that should be fully explored in the near term to figure out how citizens want to go at it. Until that solution (or spectrum of tools) is forwarded I'm not convinced we can responsibly plan for more north side parkland purchases, although the Greenways Committee should definitely be utilized to help decide this and put forward a plan for lessening the disparity.
Elected office you seek: Bellingham City Council At-Large position
Age: 52
Family: wife Audrey Farr; children Kelli Morrison, 27, Rick Farr, 25, and Abbigail Farr, 9.
Education: bachelor of arts in psychology and human development; master of science, clinical program design.
Work experience: five years marketing manager at Whatcom Land Title, interim regional division director - Pacific Northwest for Olive Crest Family Services, 16 years as regional director of family center development - Catholic Community Services, general operating Manager - Real Solutions Consulting Group LLC, interim CEO Downtown Renaissance Network, 10 years adjunct - Woodring College of Education Human Service Department, 12 years Royal Family Kids Camp - national trainer, assistant manager - College Dairy Express, journeyman electorplater - Industrial Plating Corp, production manager - And-All Electrochrome, Federal Aviation air traffic controller - Anchorage Enroute Center, student department supervisor - Advance Electroplating.
Civic experience: 10 years chairman, Downtown Parking Commission, Rotary board member, American Red Cross board member, Hospice Foundation board member, The Firs board member, Lynden Christian School board member, Evergreen Christian School board mMember, director Royal Family Kids Camp, founder Downtown Renaissance Network (now Downtown Partnership), finalist - CAO City of Bellingham Chair - Umbrella Fest.
Major endorsements: Bellingham Police Guild, Whatcom County Association of Realtors.
Campaign website: larryfarr2011.com
Email: larryfarr2011@gmail.com
Twitter handle: @larryfarr2011.com
Facebook page: facebook.com/LarryFarr2011
Q and A
Candidates answered the following questions in their own words. These are unedited; candidates were limited to 300 words per questions.
Please share your thinking on the Gateway Pacific Terminal project. If you favor it, how can Bellingham be protected from potential negative impacts? If you oppose it, is there any level of mitigation or compensation that would change your thinking?
I stand in favor of the terminal, for commodities - not just coal. Let's work to do this, based on facts that are best for our environment and community or not do it at all. We can work together to protect our futures and environment. We need to be proactive in the discussions surrounding the environmental impact study that will/is occurring. We need to step up and address the concerns we have for air quality, noise pollution, and potential hazards created by the increase in train traffic. We are going to have a change in our community if the terminal is built and we need to have an active dialogue with our congressional representatives to ensure that our concerns are addressed. This must be done at the highest levels, as well as locally.
Coal is difficult, in that it is an environmentally unclean fuel source and is rightfully disliked by many, coal then becomes the issue and not so much the terminal itself. But we also need to consider the implications if additional commodities are transported through Bellingham. The negative impacts are, the additional trains bringing coal through town (and additional commodities in the future), the diesel emissions caused by increased train traffic, the potential for inadequate storage facilities, hazardous products and dangerous coal dust impacting the community I doubt if Bellingham can stop the states of Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas from shipping their export products to the far east. The question then becomes, what can we do to protect our community from the change.
The terminal has the potential for solid livable wage jobs, and this too must be considered. What is the potential for the future or Whatcom County and the impact on the business community?
Should city water bills be raised to provide more money for Lake Whatcom storm water control and watershed land acquisition? Why or why not?
Not at this time. I think we should spend our current fees better. My water bill has two designations ($10.00 for a medium footprint for storm water and $14.00 for Lake Whatcom), these are in addition to the current water fee. (Note, we are moving to a metered system, each home will show actual use and pay an accurate cost of water). So before we increase, let's look at how current fees are being used to help maintain/protect the water shed and provide storm-water control. We need to use these fees better, focusing on what needs to be done instead of wasting dollars on projects that don't maintain the water quality.
For example, land acquisition is not always the best use of the dollar. If you compare our watershed with Seattle's reservoir (Lake Youngs), you will find that our lake is used well, and Lake Young's is isolated, fenced, protected in its natural state. The difficulty is that Lake Youngs, even though the shorelines are protected from humanity (cars, people, developers, boating), they have significant difficulty with grasses, natural phosphorus and fecal coli form, much like we do. Land acquisition is not the answer, as there is not enough money to purchase back all the homes and property in the city portions of the watershed - other areas have proven that this is not the answer (Lake Youngs). We need to live with our water source, continue to support alternatives to handling run off, work with home owners and developers to establish good systems, enforce the rules for lake usage, work out the difficulties between the local tribe and the north fork diversions. We need to do, just about everything well, with every penny we take in from the fees, let's not raise them, let's make them work more efficiently.
If city revenues continue to lag behind spending, should the city look for ways to increase tax revenues to maintain city services? If so, how?
Wow - do you really want the answer to this one? We have choices to make and they are not easy choices. But.. No, I am not in favor of increasing taxes. Again - I go to reviewing our projects that the city is involved with. What are current tax dollars used for and how are they best spent? How do we adjust for the reduced taxes based on consumer spending, personal property de-valuation, the lack of consumer and business confidence, etc.?
I believe we need to do two things...
1. Make sure we are spending our dollars on the necessities (Security, infrastructure, and support services) until the economy has strengthened. Let's look at the waste and pare down to a balanced budget that reflects on the available income. Increasing in areas where we need to build up, but holding on those things that can wait (Prioritize)
2. We need to adjust our ordinance and fee structures to ensure that we are a community who is actively recruiting new business (that offer livable wage jobs), and make Bellingham an attractive community for economic growth. Then we need to do it. We lose businesses every day, and this is what impacts our revenue base and cuts into what we can do. We have to decide what we want Bellingham to be and establish the capital to do this... but not just keep on the same course of increase and spend.
What are your views on the red-light cameras? If voters pass the nonbinding measure in November against the cameras, would you vote to end the program after the one-year pilot, even if it raised a large amount of money for the city?
The process has been flawed from the beginning and continues to be a concern for many in the community.
If the voters pass the non-binding measure in November, then the contract needs to be eliminated and the program ended. If this is what the citizens vote for, then it must be honored, regardless of the dollars raised. We live in a community that works together and as a council member I would serve as a representative, and the elected council members are to reflect the wishes of the community. This is what a representative form of government is. The elected few, representing the larger body.
To go against the community wishes - based on a vote of the majority is not good representative government.
What are your views on the recently passed shopping bag ordinance? Would you like to revisit the issue? If so, what changes would you support?
I believe that we should educate before we legislate. I would rather offer the business community an incentive to remove the plastic bags from circulation than place the sole responsibility on the citizens as a micro-management action from city government.
I would support a change to remove the fees associated with the ordinance that are passed on to the shopper and provide for an incentive to the businesses who move from current practices to a greener form of bags.
There is no question that plastic bags are not good for the enviroment, and my family is a recycling family, one that respects and works for a cleaner environment. But this ordinance falls short, in that it has too many variables and inconsistencies.
What can the city do to speed up waterfront redevelopment?
ACT... Just move it forward. 1. Work with the Port more closely - open communication and planning 2. Decide on a master plan - sooner rather than later. This has been discussed over and over and needs to be resolved. 3. We need to work more closely with the railroad for access and concerns 4. Drop the hugely expensive bridge planning and look at other access options until such a time economically that this route becomes more viable financially...then move forward. 5. Recruit appropriate business partnerships to work with the city and the port in beginning to establish the actual commercial/residential steps. 6. Solidify who is going to be responsible for the clean-up needed. The process has lagged and we are at risk for losing funding if we can't get an accurate plan together with a solid time-line. The City should be a leader in pushing this forward to the next step.
How should the city cover the $3.4 million gap in the Chuckanut Ridge purchase? With this large purchase on the south side, what should the city do to provide a better parks balance on the north side?
This should have been figured out with a solid re-payment plan before the agreements were put into place. The city should have worked closely with the Greenways Committee prior to saying yes to figure out how to pay for it.
One option to repay the endowment is - There is property suitable for building surrounding the site that could be established as homes, without disturbing the core of the land. This could be sold and developed to pay for the remaining 3.4 million owed. This not the best option, but far better than looking to pay for it out of future greenways levies. The Council acted too fast in approving the purchase without a solid financing plan. To go back to the voters - in the future for a Greenways additional level would not be wise.
With the economy struggling, it is not necessarily a good time to try a private/public-fundraiser. But the debt exists and we need to do everything we possibly can to pay for it. This is the creativity of our community as we come together to figure this out. There will need to be more than one source of income to pay the remaining balance (3.4 million).
Part two - Better parks on the northside means that the city needs to stop purchasing unwanted wet lands that make lousy parks for our families. The city needs to work with the neighborhoods and planned developers/developments to obtain viable property that can be set-aside to become parks. This could be done with incentives to reduce the development fees... the shortage of land is not the issue - it is a shortage of usable good land that is the issue.
Elected office you seek: Bellingham City Council At-Large position
Age: 48
Education: Sehome High School, 1981; University of Washington bachelor of arts, 1986; Willamette University College of Law law degree, 1992.
Work experience: Attorney.
Civic experience: six years Bellingham Greenways Committee, eight years Whatcom County Council, two years Bellingham City Council.
Major endorsements: Sierra Club, Whatcom Democrats, Washington Conservation Voters, Local Firefighters 106.
Campaign website: sethfleetwood.com
Email: seth@openaccess.org
Q and A
Candidates answered the following questions in their own words. These are unedited; candidates were limited to 300 words per questions.
Please share your thinking on the Gateway Pacific Terminal project. If you favor it, how can Bellingham be protected from potential negative impacts? If you oppose it, is there any level of mitigation or compensation that would change your thinking?
The Comprehensive Plan permits another pier at Cherry Point and I support it provided environmental concerns can be mitigated. However, I am opposed to a sole source bulk coal terminal. I believe in the science of greenhouse gases and global climate change. I believe that continued burning of coal at the current rate is unsustainable and will lead to avoidable damage both social and environmental. Bellingham, a leader in sustainability, should not be complicit in contributing to this damage. Of course, the observation is made that even if it were not built at Cherry Point a pier would still be built somewhere and the mining, shipment, and burning of coal will happen regardless. Perhaps so but, in my view, that simply underscores the need and imperative for our opposition to be meaningful in the movement to wean ourselves off coal dependency. I think we help do that by continuing our leadership role in the field of sustainability that other communities can emulate. I also do not see how the increased traffic of coal trains running through Bellingham can be, practically, mitigated. I hope that Bellingham continues to promote a broad scoping of the environmental impacts that include indirect impacts to affected communities who will see a phalanx of coal trains rumbling through the center of their towns up to 20 percent of every single day. What level of mitigation would change my mind? Perhaps sufficient money to pay for tunnels, sound walls and carbon offsets.
Should city water bills be raised to provide more money for Lake Whatcom storm water control and watershed land acquisition? Why or why not?
Yes. It's either some more now or a lot more later. The Watershed Advisory Board has unanimously recommended an increase on the surcharge. I support the increase and believe it should be committed to not only re-stimulating the acquisition program but also dedicated to stormwater projects. We must continue the work of building a full protection plan for Lake Whatcom. Much has been done in the last ten years but, clearly, not enough. The last decade has seen the reduction in many development rights through the land acquisition program, downzones and the density reduction program. Additionally zoning improvements by the City and County have improved tree retention rules, set back requirement and impervious surface rules, to name but a few. I will champion an increase in the water rates that will generate nearly 3 million dollars annually to increase resources for land acquisition and stormwater improvements. Perhaps not popular but necessary I believe. I am hopeful that a robust public process will ensue that generates community support and buy in for this proposal. Taking this action would constitute a meaningful step forward in the ongoing effort to establish a full protection program for Lake Whatcom.
If city revenues continue to lag behind spending, should the city look for ways to increase tax revenues to maintain city services? If so, how?
At some point additional revenue has to be on the table. Citizens of Bellingham expect a certain level of public services and have shown a willingness to pay for it provided the use of increased taxes are well articulated and support basic expectations. I am not opposed to the City using its annual, authorized, 1 percent increase to help compensate for inflation. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society".
What are your views on the red-light cameras? If voters pass the nonbinding measure in November against the cameras, would you vote to end the program after the one-year pilot, even if it raised a large amount of money for the city?
I am not a fan of red-light cameras. I was the only councilmember to vote against red light cameras. My opposition was, primarily, based on due process and privacy grounds. I am concerned that receiving a ticket in the mail weeks after the event reduces the ability to recall the alleged offense and thus limits the ability to mount a constitutionally permitted defense. I also am concerned that the rationale for permitting cameras on certain intersections is the same rationale that would permit their proliferated use in all sorts of other areas. I just don't like the idea of government cameras watching citizens in a free society. So, yes, I would vote to end the program.
What are your views on the recently passed shopping bag ordinance? Would you like to revisit the issue? If so, what changes would you support?
I support it and would not revisit the issue. We use 22 million disposable bags per year in Bellingham. They are a wasteful scourge that toxify our landfills and pollute our waters. They never biodegrade, they photo degrade into tiny toxic bits; Even if used twice, they become garbage after limited use. A disciplined and caring community can help ameliorate this problem with the simplest change in behavior, namely, by using a reusable bag when shopping. I am glad that Bellingham has joined the growing international movement to reduce this easily reversible form of conspicuous waste.
What can the city do to speed up waterfront redevelopment?
Adopt the master plan and development regulations so that some degree of certainty and understanding exists for potential developers and the public. I think the Council, frankly, has been polite with both the Port and City Administrations and been deferential in their request for more time to finish up final details in the various drafts. We have been told that the planning commission will be getting these drafts for review very soon. Should that not happen I think it is entirely appropriate for the Council, in their oversight capacity, to schedule a hearing and invite staff to explain why this phase of the planning process is taking so long. But I have confidence in the negotiators; both the Port and City have excellent staff working on this issue.
How should the city cover the $3.4 million gap in the Chuckanut Ridge purchase? With this large purchase on the south side, what should the city do to provide a better parks balance on the north side?
The City has been clear that the $3.4 million dollar inter fund loan will be repaid in full, with interest, within 6 years. The public is on clear notice that they can participate in the effort to raise that amount by any legal means including but not limited to grants, fundraising, parks district, local improvement districts. In the event the money has not been raised then some sufficient portion of the property that has been amassed by the City in that area should be surplussed to cover the obligation within the term mentioned. The City is dedicated, not to mention legally obligated, to use more of the Greenways III acquisition money for Northside purchases to help equalize Greenway assets throughout town; Regional balance is one of the basic Greenway principles. However, implementing a Greenways program is not simply a matter of planning on maps, it is very much limited by the opportunities that exist. Northside does not have as many large, green tracts so a different vision and approach is required. The Greenways Advisory Committee has helped create a thoughtful vision expressed in the Greenways Strategic Plan that envisions smaller acquisitions linked together by trails all of which, ultimately, will be linked to not only the entire Bellingham trail and park plan but greater Whatcom County as well. The staff, citizens and advisory members are dedicated to pursuing that vision and taking advantage of opportunities when willing sellers exist.
